Develop Reference

Mockito mocks locally final class but fails in Jenkins

I have written some unit tests for a static method. The static method takes only one argument. The argument's type is a final class. In terms of code:
public class Utility {
public static Optional<String> getName(Customer customer) {
// method's body.
}
}
public final class Customer {
// class definition
}
So for the Utility class I have created a test class UtilityTests in which I have written tests for this method, getName. The unit testing framework is TestNG and the mocking library that is used is Mockito. So a typical test has the following structure:
public class UtilityTests {
#Test
public void getNameTest() {
// Arrange
Customer customerMock = Mockito.mock(Customer.class);
Mockito.when(...).thenReturn(...);
// Act
Optional<String> name = Utility.getName(customerMock);
// Assert
Assert.assertTrue(...);
}
}
What is the problem ?
Whereas the tests run successfully locally, inside IntelliJ, they fail on Jenkins (when I push my code in the remote branch, a build is triggered and unit tests run at the end). The error message is sth like the following:
org.mockito.exceptions.base.MockitoException: Cannot mock/spy class
com.packagename.Customer Mockito
cannot mock/spy because :
- final class
What I tried ?
I searched a bit, in order to find a solution but I didn't make it. I note here that I am not allowed to change the fact that Customer is a final class. In addition to this, I would like if possible to not change it's design at all (e.g. creating an interface, that would hold the methods that I want to mock and state that the Customer class implements that interface, as correctly Jose pointed out in his comment). The thing that I tried is the second option mentioned at mockito-final. Despite the fact that this fixed the problem, it brake some other unit tests :(, that cannot be fixed in none apparent way.
Questions
So here are the two questions I have:
How that is possible in the first place ? Shouldn't the test fail both locally and in Jenkins ?
How this can be fixed based in the constraints I mentioned above ?
Thanks in advance for any help.

An alternative approach would be to use the 'method to class' pattern.
Move the methods out of the customer class into another class/classes, say CustomerSomething eg/CustomerFinances (or whatever it's responsibility is).
Add a constructor to Customer.
Now you don't need to mock Customer, just the CustomerSomething class! You may not need to mock that either if it has no external dependencies.
Here's a good blog on the topic: https://simpleprogrammer.com/back-to-basics-mock-eliminating-patterns/

How that is possible in the first place? Shouldn't the test fail both locally and in Jenkins ?
It's obviously a kind of env-specifics. The only question is - how to determine the cause of difference.
I'd suggest you to check org.mockito.internal.util.MockUtil#typeMockabilityOf method and compare, what mockMaker is actually used in both environments and why.
If mockMaker is the same - compare loaded classes IDE-Client vs Jenkins-Client - do they have any difference on the time of test execution.
How this can be fixed based in the constraints I mentioned above?
The following code is written in assumption of OpenJDK 12 and Mockito 2.28.2, but I believe you can adjust it to any actually used version.
public class UtilityTest {
#Rule
public InlineMocksRule inlineMocksRule = new InlineMocksRule();
#Rule
public MockitoRule mockitoRule = MockitoJUnit.rule();
#Test
public void testFinalClass() {
// Given
String testName = "Ainz Ooal Gown";
Client client = Mockito.mock(Client.class);
Mockito.when(client.getName()).thenReturn(testName);
// When
String name = Utility.getName(client).orElseThrow();
// Then
assertEquals(testName, name);
}
static final class Client {
final String getName() {
return "text";
}
}
static final class Utility {
static Optional<String> getName(Client client) {
return Optional.ofNullable(client).map(Client::getName);
}
}
}
With a separate rule for inline mocks:
import org.junit.rules.TestRule;
import org.junit.runner.Description;
import org.junit.runners.model.Statement;
import org.mockito.internal.configuration.plugins.Plugins;
import org.mockito.internal.util.MockUtil;
import java.lang.invoke.MethodHandles;
import java.lang.invoke.VarHandle;
import java.lang.reflect.Field;
import java.lang.reflect.Modifier;
public class InlineMocksRule implements TestRule {
private static Field MOCK_MAKER_FIELD;
static {
try {
MethodHandles.Lookup lookup = MethodHandles.privateLookupIn(Field.class, MethodHandles.lookup());
VarHandle modifiers = lookup.findVarHandle(Field.class, "modifiers", int.class);
MOCK_MAKER_FIELD = MockUtil.class.getDeclaredField("mockMaker");
MOCK_MAKER_FIELD.setAccessible(true);
int mods = MOCK_MAKER_FIELD.getModifiers();
if (Modifier.isFinal(mods)) {
modifiers.set(MOCK_MAKER_FIELD, mods & ~Modifier.FINAL);
}
} catch (IllegalAccessException | NoSuchFieldException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
#Override
public Statement apply(Statement base, Description description) {
return new Statement() {
#Override
public void evaluate() throws Throwable {
Object oldMaker = MOCK_MAKER_FIELD.get(null);
MOCK_MAKER_FIELD.set(null, Plugins.getPlugins().getInlineMockMaker());
try {
base.evaluate();
} finally {
MOCK_MAKER_FIELD.set(null, oldMaker);
}
}
};
}
}

Make sure you run the test with the same arguments. Check if your intellij run configurations match the jenkins. https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/creating-and-editing-run-debug-configurations.html. You can try to run test on local machine with the same arguments as on jenkins(from terminal), if it will fail that means the problem is in arguments

How to design a class for unit tests

I have a Java class like the following:
public class MyClass {
/** Database Connection. */
private dbCon;
public MyClass() {
dbCon = ...
}
public void doSomethingWith(MyData data) {
data = convertData(data);
dbCon.storeData(data);
}
private MyData convertData(MyData data) {
// Some complex logic...
return data;
}
}
since the true logic of this class lies in the convertData() method, I want to write a Unit Test for this method.
So I read this post
How do I test a private function or a class that has private methods, fields or inner classes?
where a lot of people say that the need to test a private method is a design smell. How can it be done better?
I see 2 approaches:
Extract the convertData() method into some utility class with a public api. But I think this would be also bad practice since such utility classes will violate the single responsibilty principle, unless I create a lot of utility classes with maybe only one or two methods.
Write a second constructor that allows injection of the dbCon, which allows me to inject a mocked version of the database connection and run my test against the public doSomething() method. This would be my preferred approach, but there are also discussions about how the need of mocking is also a code smell.
Are there any best practices regarding this problem?

Extract the convertData() method into some utility class with a public api. But I think this would be also bad practice since such utility classes will violate the single responsibility principle, unless I create a lot of utility classes with maybe only one or two methods.
You interpretation of this is wrong. That is exactly what the SRP and SoC (Separation of Concerns) suggests
public interface MyDataConverter {
MyData convertData(MyData data);
}
public class MyDataConverterImplementation implements MyDataConverter {
public MyData convertData(MyData data) {
// Some complex logic...
return data;
}
}
convertData implementation can be now tested in isolation and independent of MyClass
Write a second constructor that allows injection of the dbCon, which allows me to inject a mocked version of the database connection and run my test against the public doSomething() method. This would be my preferred approach, but there are also discussions about how the need of mocking is also a code smell.
Wrong again. Research Explicit Dependency Principle.
public class MyClass {
private DbConnection dbCon;
private MyDataConverter converter;
public MyClass(DbConnection dbCon, MyDataConverter converter) {
this.dbCon = dbCon;
this.converter = converter;
}
public void doSomethingWith(MyData data) {
data = converter.convertData(data);
dbCon.storeData(data);
}
}
MyClass is now more honest about what it needs to perform its desired function.
It can also be unit tested in isolation with the injection of mocked dependencies.

Powermock - mocking static class members

I'm trying to mock the following class which contains some static members
public class ClientFact {
private static final String BASE_URL = Config.getProperty("prop1");
private static final String USERID = Config.getProperty("prop2");
......................
public static Client createClient() throws AppException {
}
}
but i'm running into issues with the static member variables which are populated by Config.getProperty. This class does a read on a properties file like so
public class Config {
...............
public static String getProperty(Param param) {
String value = null;
if (param != null) {
value = properties.getProperty(param.toString());
}
return value;
}
}
I'm trying to mock this call since i dont care about the loaded properties in my test. This is what ive tried
#RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class)
#PrepareForTest({ClientFact.class})
public class MyTests {
#Test
public void test() {
PowerMock.mockStaticPartial(Config.class, "getProperty");
EasyMock.expect(Config.getProperty(EasyMock.anyObject())).andReturn(EasyMock.anyString()).anyTimes();
PowerMock.mockStatic(ClientFact.class);
}
}
but its giving the following error...
java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org/easymock/internal/MocksControl.createMock(Ljava/lang/Class;[Ljava/lang/reflect/Method;)Ljava/lang/Object;
at org.powermock.api.easymock.PowerMock.doCreateMock(PowerMock.java:2214)
at org.powermock.api.easymock.PowerMock.doMock(PowerMock.java:2163)
any ideas what im doign wrong here?

A non-answer: consider not making static calls there.
You see, that directly couples that one class to the implementation of that static method in some other class; for no real reason. (and for the record: it seems strange that a USER_ID String is a static field in your ClientFact class. Do you really intend that all ClientFacts are using the same USER_ID?!)
You could replace that static call with a non-static version (for example by introducing an interface); and then you can use dependency injection to make an instance of that interface available to your class under test. And then all your testing works without the need to Powermock.
Long story short: very often (but not always!) the need to turn to Powermock originates in production code which wasn't written to be testable (like in your case). Thus instead of using the big bad Powermock hammer to "fix" your testing problem, you should consider improving your production code.
You might want to listen to those videos to get a better understanding what I am talking about.

giving access to only few properties of a class?

I have below the class.
SomeClass.java
public class SomeClass {
private String name;
private String id;
private String access;
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(String id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getAccess() {
return access;
}
public void setAccess(String access) {
this.access = access;
}
public void doSomeFunctionality(){
//does some logic using name and id
}
}
Now I have to expose only few methods of above class to clients. I can do as below.
SomeOtherClass.java
public class SomeOtherClass {
private SomeClass someClass = new SomeClass();
public void setName(String name) {
someClass.setName(name);
}
public void setId(String id) {
this.setId(id);
}
}
By doing like above i can restrict one method not accessible to clients and am exposing only required methods. Now client instantiates SomeClass and populates the data into someClass property of SomeOtherClass.java.
But now how can i get the populated data from SomeOtherClass.java?
public SomeClass getSomeClass() {
return someClass;
}
If i provide getter method to get SomeClass in SomeOtherClass.java like above then even clients can also access it which i dont want to do.
But if i can get populated someClass instance directly then i can simply call doSomeFunctionality() on the same instance. like getSomeClass().doSomeFunctionality();
How can i overcome above scenario?
Thanks!

Your question seems confused, but I think this is the answer you are looking for,
Your approach to letting the client get the information should be exactly the same as letting them set it. You should not provide access to the inner SomeClass - that defeats the whole point. So if you want to provide both read and write access to only the name property, your outer class should look like:
public class SomeOtherClass {
private SomeClass someClass = new SomeClass();
public void setName(String name) {
someClass.setName(name);
}
public String getName() {
return someClass.getName();
}
}
You don't have to make the properties they can get the same as the properties they can set. You could also allow them to 'get' the ID, for example, but not set it. If you want them to have access to all the properties, provide getters for all properties in SomeOtherClass. If that is the case you might want to consider creating an interface which specifies all the getter methods and is implemented by both SomeClass and SomeOtherClass, with both classes also implementing the setter methods they require.
There are other architectural approaches if you always want to provide full 'read' access but restricted 'write' access, which we can go into if you ask.

If you create an interface that is implemented by the class that will be used by the client, but then the client obtains its reference to the instantiation of the class using the interface, even if you have public properties, members, ...etc., the client will only see those provided/defined by the interface.

Don't return the SomeClass object in a getter, just create a getter for the field(s) you want to make available:
public String getName() {
return someClass.getName();
}

I would suggest thinking about how you would separately test the pieces involved here. If we look at SomeOtherClass, right away we notice that it has a dependency on SomeClass--this is fine. Unfortunately, you hardwire the dependency to SomeClass by using the new operator. If you used a dependency injection framework (e.g., Spring or Guice) you could simply have the framework provide a fully configured instance of SomeClass to SomeOtherClass so that the instance could be used directly and SomeClass is no longer in the business of creating its own dependencies, but rather it goes about doing its useful work. Calling new on SomeClass in SomeOtherClass impedes your ability to test SomeOtherClass independently of SomeClass--you'll be integration testing unless you employ something like PowerMock, which really is better used in emergency situations like when you can't control third-party code. Hope it helps! P.S. all those setters and none for your dependency on SomeClass!

Java newbie problem: package with private access

Pack.java imports pack.TestPack; but it cannot access it. I cannot understand why it cannot access the class despite the import.
Error
Pack.java:7: TestPack() is not public in pack.TestPack; cannot be accessed from outside package
System.out.println(new TestPack().getHello());
^
1 error
Pack.java
import pack.TestPack;
import java.io.*;
public class Pack
{
public static void main(String[] args){
System.out.println(new TestPack().getHello());
}
}
TestPack.java
package pack;
import java.util.*;
import java.io.*;
public class TestPack
{
private String hello="if you see me, you ar inside class TestPack";
public String getHello(){return hello;}
TestPack(){}
}

You should make TestPack's constructor public.
public class TestPack
{
private String hello="if you see me, you ar inside class TestPack";
public String getHello(){return hello;}
public TestPack(){}
}
The thing is, even though TestPack visibility is public, its parameterless constructor visibility is package (which is the visibility when you don't specify one explicitly).
package visibility means that classes in the same package will be able to see it. Since TestPack and Pack are not in the same package, Pack can't call TestPack's constructor.

In the way you are using getHello function, you may start thinking using static methods
public class TestPack
{
private static String hello="if you see me, you ar inside class TestPack";
public static String getHello(){return hello;}
private TestPack(){}
}
then you just will do:
public class Pack
{
public static void main(String[] args){
System.out.println(TestPack.getHello());
}
}

I suggest that you don't make the class public but make the constructor public and have folks use a public interface that your class implements. It is a good idea to start the API to your package to be public interfaces (and perhaps some public abstract classes) and hide your implementation classes by not marking them as public so that you can change these over time. You can then provide a public factory methods in your package which instantiate your package private class and return them as the interface types. Here is an interface which is public:
package stackoverflow;
public interface Widget {
public void doWidgetWork(String work);
}
Here is the implementation which is "package private". The compiler wont let code outside of the same package import nor use this class at all:
package stackoverflow;
/*package*/ class WidgetHidden implements Widget {
public WidgetHidden(String configOptionA, String configOptionB){
// ...
}
public WidgetHidden(){
// ...
}
public void doWidgetWork(String work)[
// ...
}
}
notice there that the second occurrence of the word /package/ is a comment (it is not legal in java to use that word there) but many programmers use such a comment in that position to show people that it was not an accident that the class is not public; it signifies that the developer really intended that the class is deliberately "package private". To let people instantiate the class from outside of your package you provide a static factory class (else an instance factory class):
package stackoverflow;
public class WidgetFactory {
public static Widget newInstance( String configOptionA, String configOptionB) {
return new Widget( String configOptionA, String configOptionB);
}
}
The whole point of the factory class is that it hides your internal classes (the ones you hide as package private). Over time you can change your factory classes to return new classes or rename or delete the WidgetHidden class.
Many frameworks indicate which classes other developers should not use by putting them into a package with the name "internal" in it. The public interfaces would be in the main package (e.g. "com.stackoverflow.widget") and the hidden classes into your internal package which only exposes public factory classes (e.g. "com.stackoverflow.widget.internal").
A variation on the theme is to not use a static method on the factory class; make it a regular method. The alternatives are called "static factories" or "instance factories" depending on whether the method is static or not. Not making the method static seems like more work for people using your package as they first have to instantiate your factory object before using it to create Widget. Where is helpful is when people might want to set some defaults for all widgets on the constructor of the factory then use the none static newInstance methods to specify anything beyond the defaults:
public class WidgetInstanceFactory {
private String defaultOptionA = null;
public WidgetInstanceFactory( String defaultOptionA ) {
this.defaultOptionA = defaultOptionA;
}
public Widget newInstance( String optionB ) {
return new WidgetHidden( this.defaultOptionA, optionB );
}
}
It is possible to get around package private protection using reflection to find and invoke the constructor. A really nice feature of the Spring framework it that it will instantiate classes that are not public even when there is no factory class (although it is more polite to provide factory classes which Spring is happy to use also). The following code will work:
package stackoverflow.other;
class TestInstantiate {
private Widget myWidget = null;
public TestInstantiate(){
this.myWidget = instantiatePackagePrivateClass("stackoverflow.WidgetHidden");
}
private Widget instantiatePackagePrivateClass(String className)
throws ClassNotFoundException, NoSuchMethodException,
InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException,
InvocationTargetException {
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
Class<FileUploadSequence> clazz = (Class<Widget>) Class.forName(className);
Constructor<Widget> constructor = clazz.getConstructor(new Class[]{});
constructor.setAccessible(true);
Widget widget = (Widget) constructor.newInstance((Object[])null);
return widget;
}
}
In that example I used the no arguments constructor but clearly you can find and invoke the two string constructor using the same approach. Clearly such code gets around the intention of the programmer who wrote WidgetHidden; they wanted to hide it as they are likely to change it. Anyone who uses such a back door to manipulate the package private object should be aware that the class WidgetHidden is not part of the public API of the framework they are using so it likely to be deleted or changed without prior notice by the developer who wrote the package you are using. Renaming it to be WidgetInternal and putting it into an "internal" package make it every more the case you are telling people "do not uses". The JVM has optional security setting which prevent people from doing such tricks; but the person running the JVM has to configure it externally to dis-allow such tricks which is only useful when you want to run someone else code you don't trust and prevent it from pulling such tricks.
The book Effective Java by Josha Block 2nd Edition has a lot of discussion and examples and details of the pitfalls when trying to write a good API. It has a lot of detail to explain why you should always look to hide as many classes as you can with lots of other good "tricks of the trade".